Gord wrote:When people think their psychiatric medications are "poison", that's a bad sign.

But aren`t those meds poison? After all, don`t they all come in child-proof bottles? Isn`t What`s your poison? normally answered by naming an age/activity restricted concoction that in sufficient quantity causes all sorts of physical difficulties?

Gord wrote:When people think their psychiatric medications are "poison", that's a bad sign.

But aren`t those meds poison? After all, don`t they all come in child-proof bottles? Isn`t What`s your poison? normally answered by naming an age/activity restricted concoction that in sufficient quantity causes all sorts of physical difficulties?

Gord wrote:When people think their psychiatric medications are "poison", that's a bad sign.

But aren`t those meds poison? After all, don`t they all come in child-proof bottles? Isn`t What`s your poison? normally answered by naming an age/activity restricted concoction that in sufficient quantity causes all sorts of physical difficulties?

psychiatry is a scam wrote: so what do you think of the docu - THE BLEEDING EDGE - ?

Bleeding Edge Documentary / 2018 America has the most technologically advanced health care system in the world, yet medical interventions have become the third leading cause of death, and the overwhelming majority of high-risk implanted devices never require a single clinical trial. In THE BLEEDING EDGE, Academy Award (R) nominated filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering (THE INVISIBLE WAR, THE HUNTING GROUND) turn their sights on the $400 billion medical device industry, examining lax regulations, corporate cover-ups, and profit driven incentives that put patients at risk daily.https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_bleeding_edge/

I have not seen the documentary but I can see a mathematical flaw. Humans, before any form of medical intervention probably had a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years.

If the average life expectancy is now 85 to 90 years old with medical intervention and the documentary claims medical intervention is the third leading cause of death, then I'm not 100% sure what they think the problem is.

Do we really want to go back to dying at 25 to 30 years average life expectancy? Aren't they simply saying that some forms of medical intervention are bad and some forms of medical intervention are good and we simply need better testing?

School shootings come to less than 100 deaths per year. Non socialised medicine kills at least 50,000 per year due to poor people being unable to access that which keeps them alive (according to New Scientist ), but it may be many more. The best way for the USA to get its life span statistics up is to make good medical care available to the poor.

Major Malfunction wrote:Historical life expectancy numbers can be deceiving. They take into account half the kids died before adulthood, and half the women died in childbirth. But if you survived that, you had a pretty good chance of living to a ripe old age.

I first became aware of that logic with the Romans, 2000 years ago. If you survived childhood you had probably lived until you were 50 or 60. That makes heaps of sense because if you joined the Roman army at 25 and served your obligatory 20 years service, you had a good chance of living another 10 or 20 years on the land you were given upon retirement.

Putin has lost a lot of his popularity recently, because he wants to raise the Russian retirement age to 65 for males and Russian life expectancy is only 66 for males. However Putin points out that although child mortality is low, it is only the current older generation that has a life expectancy of 66 due to massive alcoholism in the 60s, 70s 80s and 1990s.